constitutional carry

I believe that every state should have constitutional carry. I think that of states have cpl laws that it shouldnt cost anything or very little (like 5 or ten dollars). it is unfair to charge someone for a constitutionally guaranteed right. If you have a poor man that cant afford the $105 that you must pay the state here in Michigan, should he be denied the right to self defense?

Also, how do anti-gun groups get off saying that the 2A doesnt apply to state and local governments. If you do that with one amendment then you have to do it with all of them. For instance, what if an anti-gun group had a demonstration in a very pro-gun state like Arizona. It was peaceful and they were handing out literature. Exercising their first amendment right to free speech. All of a sudden, the police come and break up the demonstration and arrest all of the group and charge them with a crime, that if convicted, would make them a felon.

The people arrested say they were exercising their 1A rights. They are told that the 1A applies only to the federal government and state and local governments are not obligated to recognize it. Imagine the outcry!!!

Most on this site will agree with you. My thought is that every gun law on the books, federal and state, are unconstitutional. PA is not as bad as Michigan. The permit is only around $15 and it is good for five years.
Article 1 section 21 of the PA Constitution Right to bear arms. “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.” I have a book 8X10 124 pages long, PA laws relating to firearms. That is a lot of questing.

Good point there clip. Here's my problem here in the Northwest. I live in Oregon and Washington State is 4 miles away. I have to have a CCP for both states because they don't reciprocate. Although all the states around us will accept Oregon and Washington permits. Politicians are crooks and cowards who recive their bread and butter through others pain and suffering.

As long as we are ranting (little good that it will do) since the 2nd Amendment refers to a militia, then the arm that I have a right to bear should be the arm of the militia. That means an M16. So.... what do you MEAN I cannot have a full auto M16, and no more can be registered? As long as this is a contitutional right, why am I not issued an M16 when I become an adult citizen? Of course, the arm is useless without ammo, so where are my ammo stamps? That's right- I want goverment ammo- and since it DOES say "well regulated" how about a range where I can go shoot without paying for membership? And let's not forget targets, cleaning gear, optics.......

I believe that every state should have constitutional carry. I think that of states have cpl laws that it shouldnt cost anything or very little (like 5 or ten dollars). it is unfair to charge someone for a constitutionally guaranteed right. If you have a poor man that cant afford the $105 that you must pay the state here in Michigan, should he be denied the right to self defense?

Also, how do anti-gun groups get off saying that the 2A doesnt apply to state and local governments. If you do that with one amendment then you have to do it with all of them. For instance, what if an anti-gun group had a demonstration in a very pro-gun state like Arizona. It was peaceful and they were handing out literature. Exercising their first amendment right to free speech. All of a sudden, the police come and break up the demonstration and arrest all of the group and charge them with a crime, that if convicted, would make them a felon.

Click to expand...

Is this a troll?

What is a "cpl" law? It may be something that everyone in your state understands, but not out here. - - If the fee your refer to is for background check prior to issuance of a concealed carry permit, the cost of that is more than 5 or 10 dollars. Do you expect your local government to subsidize concealed carry permits? If you want to say something like "the fee shall be only what it costs to do the check" I'll bet you get a lot more support.

If you have a poor man that cant afford the $105 that you must pay the state here in Michigan, should he be denied the right to self defense?

Click to expand...

Why does not having a concealed carry permit restrict someone's right to self defense? There are literally hundreds of thousands of people in your state that disagree with you (or THEY would already have concealed carry permits). The Second Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Keep in mind that the 2A was written back when only those with nefarious intent concealed their weapons. Then, to "bear arms" was to openly carry (includes handguns in a holster or tucked into the belt). Concealed carry is a privilege, not a right. - - You are comparing apples and grapefruit.

Also, how do anti-gun groups get off saying that the 2A doesnt apply to state and local governments. If you do that with one amendment then you have to do it with all of them. For instance, what if an anti-gun group had a demonstration in a very pro-gun state like Arizona. It was peaceful and they were handing out literature. Exercising their first amendment right to free speech. All of a sudden, the police come and break up the demonstration and arrest all of the group and charge them with a crime, that if convicted, would make them a felon.

Click to expand...

Pray tell, what crime - could - they be charged with, under your scenario, that if convicted makes them a felon?
You did say "peaceful" and "handing out literature" didn't you?
Sounds like tin foil hat time to me.

For anyone that wants to see more gun laws like AK, AZ(VERY soon) and VT have, I fully support that. HOWEVER, you have to convince a whole lot more people of the viability of that premise before you will have any chance of it becoming a reality.

If the fee your refer to is for background check prior to issuance of a concealed carry permit, the cost of that is more than 5 or 10 dollars. Do you expect your local government to subsidize concealed carry permits?

Click to expand...

No. I don't expect them to do background checks. Do you see anything about the government being required to do a check to determine whether or not someone's unalienable rights may be granted in 2A or any other part of the BoR? I don't.

The Second Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Keep in mind that the 2A was written back when only those with nefarious intent concealed their weapons. Then, to "bear arms" was to openly carry (includes handguns in a holster or tucked into the belt). Concealed carry is a privilege, not a right. - - You are comparing apples and grapefruit.

Click to expand...

First, some states do not permit open carry. Second, I don't see any qualifiers to "bear arms" such as the words "concealed" or "open". So let's err on the side of caution, shall we, and assume it means what it says. I may bear arms. Maybe it's open carry, maybe it's concealed. How I do it is my business, not yours or the state's.

Pray tell, what crime - could - they be charged with, under your scenario, that if convicted makes them a felon?
You did say "peaceful" and "handing out literature" didn't you?
Sounds like tin foil hat time to me.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you don't understand the theory of incorporation to me. Go look it up.

If 1A were not incorporated against the states (the same way 2A is not today), then it would be legal for states to ban free speech or certain types of speech. It would be possible to arrest people for peaceably assembling, speaking their mind, and petitioning the government for a redress of their grievances. Sounds pretty nuts, doesn't it?

If a group of people gathered today in a New York State park openly carrying handguns, rifles and shotguns, they would be arrested.

OK . . . . . . What have Michigan people, demonstrating in AZ, to do with NY?

Click to expand...

Seriously?

In Michigan (and New York, but that's incidental to this thread) it costs a good deal of money to get a permit to carry a handgun.

The OP asked, in essence, how would people like it if the First Amendment had not been incorporated against the states and a group of anti-gun folks gathered in a pro-gun state (like Arizona) and protested but were arrested for speaking their minds. His implication was that in other states, carrying open (or concealed without a permit) will get you arrested. Yet both free speech and the right to bear arms are part of the Bill or Rights.

What is a "cpl" law? It may be something that everyone in your state understands, but not out here. - - If the fee your refer to is for background check prior to issuance of a concealed carry permit, the cost of that is more than 5 or 10 dollars. Do you expect your local government to subsidize concealed carry permits? If you want to say something like "the fee shall be only what it costs to do the check" I'll bet you get a lot more support.

Why does not having a concealed carry permit restrict someone's right to self defense? There are literally hundreds of thousands of people in your state that disagree with you (or THEY would already have concealed carry permits). The Second Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Keep in mind that the 2A was written back when only those with nefarious intent concealed their weapons. Then, to "bear arms" was to openly carry (includes handguns in a holster or tucked into the belt). Concealed carry is a privilege, not a right. - - You are comparing apples and grapefruit.

Pray tell, what crime - could - they be charged with, under your scenario, that if convicted makes them a felon?
You did say "peaceful" and "handing out literature" didn't you?
Sounds like tin foil hat time to me.

For anyone that wants to see more gun laws like AK, AZ(VERY soon) and VT have, I fully support that. HOWEVER, you have to convince a whole lot more people of the viability of that premise before you will have any chance of it becoming a reality.

Click to expand...

I would say you are the troll. BKT has explained some of the finer points to you. Because of the 2A, most gun control laws are illegal, maybe with the exception of keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people who would obviously be a danger to themselves and others, etc. Reading the 2A, it sounds like a cpl law would be an illegal law, let alone to charge for one. If the government is going to make such a law, they should carry the cost of it, whatever that may be. According to the 2A, how I carry my handgun is my business, obviously as long as im carrying in such a way that isnt endangering the next person.

But how is putting my t shirt down over my weapon hurting anyone, let alone "society". It's a victimless "crime". Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed. It doesnt mean shall not be infringed, except in cases of concealed carry, then you can do all the infringing you like.

In comparing the 1A to the 2A, I did that to show the hypocrisy of anti-gun nuts. Alot of them cry that the 2A only applies to the federal government and not the state governments. I was trying to show that what if states made laws repressing THEIR 1A rights, based on the same grounds they say our 2A rights should be repressed. Just like states have laws that would turn otherwise law abiding citizens into felons for only exercising their 2A rights, what if states had laws that turned people into felons for exercising their 1A rights or any other of their constitutional rights?

The idea here is that the government doesn't have the lawful authority to enact or enforce laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
Constitutionally,the government should never be able to have authority to issue permission slips or arrest and imprison people for excersizing their rights.

The right to keep and bear arms as written in the Bill of Rights recognizes a pre-existing,God given inalienable right that no government can legislate away or 'take' from a citizen.
Your born with it.Much like the lion is born with fangs and claws,you are born with a brain and opposable thumbs with which to use tools in your own defense.

The government cant 'take' your inalienable rights.

However,it can act to suspend your excersize of them by making it physically impossible for you to do so.

The government does have the lawful authority to remove people from society and make it impossible for them to excersize their inalienable rights-if they are deemed too dangerous to be free by their actions.
This,by law,requires due process by a court for the determination of guilt in the question of charges arising because of the violation of another persons rights.
Not an evaluation by a state shrink.

I dont care how 'crazy' someone is-if they haven't violated another persons rights the government cant lock them up and suspend them from excersizing theirs.

It is not the job of government to write and enforce laws that pre-empt the possibility of the citizen acting in error.

"It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Parker, Chief Prosecutor for the United States of America at the Nuremberg Trials

"It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Parker, Chief Prosecutor for the United States of America at the Nuremberg Trials

just to stir the pot, the gov't can restrict your free speech until you are eighteen, they call it school. Also, in Va Beach it's elliegal to curse, cuss, or use foul language near the resort areas. Not that I don't agree with the concept of a family atmosphere free of foul language but it is a suppression of my 1a rights to an extent.

The general rule,or the 'golden rule' as it is,is best explained by Founder Thomas Jefferson-

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
-Thomas Jefferson

This means that you should be free to speak your mind unless in so doing you are violating the rights of another person.If your cussing your head off in front of someones kids-you deserve a ticket.Or a smack in the mouth.Or both.

Should the government of Virginia Beach (yes I'm familiar with the controversy) have all those signs around and be trying to create some ideal 'environment' for certain people?
Not on the public dime.

The issue of dealing with someone being verbally assaultive should be handled on a case by case basis-not with cameras and stupid signs and some draconian speech code.

But like I said above-if your being an ***,you are subject to being treated as one,so respect other peoples rights not to hear your potty mouth and all should be well.

Oh-and boycott the businesses of Virginia Beach until the tax revenues plummet and the 'authorities' there recognize when they've gone too far off the deep end-my family and I have stopped going there for vacation over a decade ago.

Public school,or as I call it -pooblik skewl- is another matter entirely.

In any case,what the government CAN do and what it DOES do and what it is actually CONSTITUTIONALLY AUTHORIZED therefor making it something they can legitimately do are very much in many cases and more than ever totally different things.Please see the quote above regarding the relationship between tyrants and law.

The idea here is that the government doesn't have the lawful authority to enact or enforce laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
Constitutionally,the government should never be able to have authority to issue permission slips or arrest and imprison people for excersizing their rights.

The right to keep and bear arms as written in the Bill of Rights recognizes a pre-existing,God given inalienable right that no government can legislate away or 'take' from a citizen.
Your born with it.Much like the lion is born with fangs and claws,you are born with a brain and opposable thumbs with which to use tools in your own defense.

The government cant 'take' your inalienable rights.

However,it can act to suspend your excersize of them by making it physically impossible for you to do so.

The government does have the lawful authority to remove people from society and make it impossible for them to excersize their inalienable rights-if they are deemed too dangerous to be free by their actions.
This,by law,requires due process by a court for the determination of guilt in the question of charges arising because of the violation of another persons rights.
Not an evaluation by a state shrink.

I dont care how 'crazy' someone is-if they haven't violated another persons rights the government cant lock them up and suspend them from excersizing theirs.

It is not the job of government to write and enforce laws that pre-empt the possibility of the citizen acting in error.

"It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Parker, Chief Prosecutor for the United States of America at the Nuremberg Trials

Click to expand...

Yes I agree. When I said mentally ill, I meant someone with lets say Ahlzemiers (dont know if i spelled it right) disease. My grandmother, before she passed had it and I can personally say, her with a gun would've been a tragedy waiting to happen. I was just saying that only in EXTREME circumstances like that should government interfere with the 2A.

I'd rather her FAMILY do the right thing and take care of her than the government having to step in and do it.
Wouldnt you?

I certainly would agree that if someones family has seen fit to place a mentally ill/disabled person in the care of professionals,that those family members and professionals -not the government- would keep them from accessing things that might be dangerous to themselves or others.

There is a lawful way to commit people to a mental institution as well,and I'm not in total disagreement with it because it involves the courts and the person in question can get due process,as far as I recall-to challenge being held against their will by the mental health authorities.

And people lawfully committed to mental health institutions or other hospitals should indeed be kept from excersizing their right to arms.Someone so mentally disturbed or disabled as they need a caretaker or to be institutionalized should have their rights restricted by the caretaker,but not by government,because even in this instance-when you give them an inch,they will take a mile.

Like trying to make every gun owner take a psych test and making up all sorts of 'reasons' why they aren't ' emotionally competent' or whatever to own a gun.

You cant let government break its own laws,because then there is no limit past that-and anything goes.